About your Search

20130117
20130125
STATION
CSPAN2 5
CNNW 3
KNTV (NBC) 3
MSNBCW 3
CSPAN 2
MSNBC 2
WBAL (NBC) 2
WRC (NBC) 2
CNN 1
LANGUAGE
English 29
Search Results 0 to 28 of about 29 (some duplicates have been removed)
are up for re-election in north carolina or out west or down south or wherever they're from, i don't think he can lift it. and can that's what i'm talking about in terms of overreach. if this was something where you said close the loophole on gun shows, catch the 40% of people who are going into the shows and escaping, buying guns if they're mentally disturbed and we should catch that and reasonable restrictions. the problem in the heller case and what d.c. was doing is they said you couldn't have a gun unless you registered it, but then today wouldn't let you register it. i mean, that's an effective you can't do it. and that does, in fact, go too far. so if it's a common sense -- and, you know, quite frankly, i don't know why ten. i don't know why somebody needs ten bullets, let alone thirty. so ten doesn't seem like some magic number to me. and, again, to the gun owners, that sounds like something somebody made up, ten. so i think that the president'stive orders -- executive orders can be accepted by the republican party, and if they did the incremental approach of background che
and the nation's debt. joining me now to debate those issues, chuck schumer of new york and newly elected republican senator ted cruz of texas. welcome back as senator cruz to "meet the press." back to both of you. i want to start on the gun debate. because as i say, even before the second term is officially underway thissy is bait is well underway. here are the highlights of what the president wants to accomplish. universal background checks. he'd like to pursue a ban on high capacity magazines. an assault weapons ban that lapsed in 2004. and he'd like stricter laws on gun trafficking. but senator schumer, just as i challenged wayne lapierre of the nra very hard when this came up, i challenge you as well with a question of, is this really going to make a difference? and rich lawry wrote something that caught my attention in "the national review." no one can write a law against mothers owning guns that one day might be turned against them by deranged sons who then commit horrific acts of murder-suicide. shooting rampages are hard to prevent because they are so often committed by young men
election, for example, i think the most racially divisive comment of the entire election was joe biden's comment where he said if the republicans win, they are, quote, going to put y'all back in chains. that made my heart weep to see a sitting vice president playing to racial fears and playing on those issues. i think that's unfortunate. i don't think it has any place in politics. >> chuck hagel, you were very tepid on "meet the press" a couple of weeks ago. >> i was. >> now you've met with him, you're more comfortable, you'll support him? >> i am. >> what changed? >> i said on your show that i had real concerns. i spent 90 minutes with him. i asked him very specific questions on the things that troubled me. his answers were forth right. and they were answers that alayed my concerns. should we keep every option on the table to prevent a nuclear iran? yes. i went further. i said, do you think we can tolerate a nuclear iran? he said no. and i said to him, well, then, if we had to use military as the only choice, would you? he said yes. second, i asked him hezbollah and hamas, should they
they're worried about their elections. i think that in the center of the country and the red states where these senators are running, they don't think that the president's message works, and they're going to try to move themselves away from that because they're worried about it. they're worried about all these -- >> we're talking about the majority of the country though. if the majority is with the president, is he too liberal? that's what i'm asking. can you call the guy too left when he's right where the middle is? how can you keep saying that? it's the only question i want to put to you. if more than 50% support equality of marriage, more than 50% support a woman's right to choose, if more than 50% are with him on guns and foreign policy, how can you call that the far left? >> let me put it this way, the fact of the matter is this is going to be politically very problematic for harry reid because for the constituency he represents in the senate, they're not going to be able to get a lot of things that the president wants done because it's too far to the left of him. for example,
: actually, think about the demographic politics of the last election. what do all of the broad array of critics not just those ones but what do they have in common? aside from the obvious -- they're all white. they're all male. now, of course, not every white male thinks the same way that they do. but it is notable that this virulent anti-regulation bunch the folks who have been the first shakers not just rush limbaugh, but the folks in congress too they're made up of mostly that same demographic group. in fact, those demographics mirror the nra itself. the nra's board is 87% male and 93% white. the nra's wayne lapierrre keeps insisting his group is bipartisan but take a look at this. the overwhelming majority of congress members with an "a" rating from the nra are republicans. on the other end of the spectrum, the fs are almost entirely democrats. a little sliver of red there you can barely even see it. and of course, the funding follows accordingly. 97% of nra funds went to republican in the last election. but it seems like the nra is not only not representative of the full america
democrats in line. many of them are up for re-election in 2014. potentially vulnerable. montana senator max baucus responded to the senate in a statement, quote, before passing new laws, we need a debate that respects responsible, law-abiding gun owners in montana instead of a one-size-fits-all directives from washington. joe manchin said, quote, i'm disappointed the president did not recommend the creation of a national commission on mass violence that i have proposed. a national commission can build the consensus we need for real action, backed not only by gun control advocates, mental health experts and entertainment industry executives but also by law-abiding gun owners. >>> the white house is worried that if this fight becomes too much about the assault weapons ban, and not enough about measures, which are more politically possible, they'll have a problem. they want to keep people focused on fights they can win. background checks, things like that. republicans have unsurprisingly responded negatively, including florida senator marco rubio. >> by the own admission of the white house, wh
her outburst is not an outburst. it's a re-election flection of l think about this. if you were going to be real about these issues you would be asking what can we do to beef up the security. something gop members have already cut, you know, and they have decisions to cut it now in these days as we're speaking. it's rank hypocrisy. i think it's a fresh breath of air that people -- >> i agree with you about the hypocrisy because i remember 9/11 very clearly and i remember how this country rallied around a president who had limited ability but we all rallied around him. the first reaction was he says we're going to get the people who knocked down this building and everybody cheered him. they weren't saying how did you screw it up buddy. it was about unit. the left and center are much better at national unity than the right. the right sees a national tragedy like this far off in bengha benghazi, not in new york city, at a very exposed position which could have happened no matter how many troops he would there. we don't blame it on everybody even know it was new york right into the heart
it because he doesn't have to worry about getting re-elected. >> well, he wasn't concealing anything. he's a progressive democrat. i loved the speech yesterday because of what he didn't say. he very often goes into this kind of airy dreaming of how we'll just transcend partisanship. well, we won't. politics is partisan. washington is partisan. it was for president clinton who wanted to campaign that he was there, campaigned saying i want to be a uniter, not a divider. our president said, he offered a vision that republicans should sign on to. they used to be tough when i was a kid. now they are just whiny. he reached out to them plenty in his first term and all they did was spit in his eye. >> i think when it comes to comprehensive immigration reform, i think the president can work with senator marco rubio. but what about on climate change? what about same-sex marriage? is there going to be cooperation in those two areas? >> number one, on same-sex marriage, the president hasn't thrown any weight behind legislation or for repealing the legislation that paul's because, bill's boss signed
and a number of senators as well. and to ask him directly about the elections and ask him about my second question. but i wanted to get your sense of where you see those lexes going. what efforts you can undertake to make sure that they are free and fair because they've been, i think, central to the next chapter in this transition. i just wanted to comment on that. the second question as it relates to afghanistan is one that senator boxer raised and her work on this has been exemplary, on women and girls and in particular, i have a -- an amendment that we got through the national defense authorization act which would require both state and defense to file a report on the efforts to promote the security of afghan women and girls just by way of itemization monitoring and responding to changes in women's security that will be part of the report. secondly, improving gender sensitivity and responsiveness among the afghan security forces and increasing the recruitment and retention of women in the afghan security forces. so both with regard to the election and women and girls. >> senator with r
that the passions of an election can sometimes overshadow the business of governing, but the presidential campaign is now behind us, and so it's my hope that the president will finally be willing to do what republicans have been asking him to do since his first inauguration four years ago and that is to work weus -- with us in solving problems, to put aside what we know we can't agree on and focus on what we can agree on. we should start with spending and debt because if we don't get a handle on that, nothing else matters. if we don't work together to strengthen our entitlement programs, they will go bankrupt. all the cuts will be forced on -- automatic cuts will be forced on seniors rendering worthless the promises they built their retirements around. it is nice to say, as the president did yesterday, these programs free us to take the risks that make our country great. but if we don't act to strengthen and protect them now, in a few years they simply won't be there in their current form if we don't work together to control the debt, the cost of our interest payments alone will eventually crowd o
people elected it to do. mr. president, may i ask unanimous consent that the period of morning business be now extended until 6:30 p.m. today and all provisions of the previous order remain in effect. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. chambliss: i rise to speak today about our tax code as well as our economic future. there's a problem with our tax code, one that hits home with nearly all americans, and that is its complexity. in the fast past few years i have met with hundreds and hundreds of constituents who are worried about this issue, individuals, small businesses, farms and large corporations alike struggle with meeting their obligations to the i.r.s. because of the complexity of our current tax code. earlier this month the i.r.s. taxpayer advocate revealed some startling figures in the agency's annual record report to congress. it estimates that individuals and businesses spend 6.1 billion hours each year complying with the i.r.s. tax filing requirements. the c
. >> there you go. bill: last time we saw each other in the nook you know what happened. that was election night. on monday join us for our fox news exclusive coverage of the inauguration that begins the second term. martha and i will be in washington, d.c. our coverage begins at 9:00 in the morning on monday and goes throughout the day. bret and megyn take over 11:00 a.m. eastern time. join us for everything that happens on monday in washington. martha. martha: big day. we're looking forward to that. >>> coming up a brand new report on cancer is in america. what it reveal about the ongoing fight to save lives. bill: waiting for manti te'o. when will he tell is his side of the story. stunning new details what he said to reporters after he knew his girlfriend did not exist. oh! progress-oh! -oh! -oh! oh! oh! ♪ wh do you know? oh! ♪ bacon? -oh! -oh! oh! [ female announcer ] with 40 delicious progresso soups at 100 calories or less, there are plenty of reasons people are saying "progress-oh!" share your story for a chance to win a progress-oh! makeover in hollywood. go to facebook.com/progresso
time as we approached an election. americans are still entitled to be told the truth. did you select embassador rice? >> i did not. although i have not had a chance to testify, i have seen the resulting debate. you are right. it was a terrorist attack. what caused it? that is what we did not know. we did not know what their motives were. after months of research, it was made clear the picture remains still complicated. i say that because in the unclassified, i " key questions surrounding the identity and motivation of the prepared -- of the perpetrators remains to be determined. i recommend all staff read the classified version, which goes into greater detail. i cannot speak to its. it goes into greater detail becausebut where a variety of pl causes and triggers afford it. and there's evidence the attacks were pre coordinated and not necessarily indicative of an extensive planning. i personally was not focused on talking points. i was focused on keeping our people say. as i said, i have a very serious threat environment in yemen. we have people getting over that wall at the cairo, do
purposes. >> i just want to say the whole business about people use today is mitt romney lost the election with the whole horse and bayonet. i wish would stay away from that because the president said were not using bayonets anymore. so it's a different weaponry, but the other thing missing here i think when i talk about overreach, the e-mail you read in general kristol's observation is people say, why do you need an assault weapon? nobody needs an assault weapon, but that's not the issue. by somebody in this country need to have a trial by jury? by somebody who's robbed a bank need to have the fourth amendment having a search warrant before you issue? nobody needs those things. the issue as they were enshrined in the constitution. so you have to make sure you work with what the supreme court has said. the right to bear arms is an individual right. the first of all affect the value can you can have reasonable restrictions, so the path forward for responsible legislators is to find out what the reasonable restrictions are that save lives. i think the taking of when human life is a horrible
to protect six democrats who are up for election in two years from now. six seats where the president had fewer than 42% of the votes and i don't think so that they're going to expose the democrats to having to choose between their constituents who know the value and importance of the second amendment and the president's policies. >> steve: what do you think of what mitch mcconnell said in the robo call that went out to several thousand kentuckiens, to make sure he'll do everything in his power to defeat it. >> we know what that means, it has to do with individual's rights to own and bear arms, you know, which is one of the reasons that i've had disagreements with the attorney general, who thinks it has to do only with the well-regulated militia, but i'm a doctor. i know there's much more to this than just what's happening in gun shows or gun shelves. so if the president wants to push a political agenda, if he actually wants to solve a problem of violence in america, there are things that we can do as a doctor, i will tell you this, with regard to mental health, with regard to a culture o
government to election toss try to get in there and help them with security, because it was clear that that was going to be one of their highest needs once they finally got stabilized. so there were a number of meetings. and i personally, i went to libya in october of 2011. i spoke with the then leadership, i met with them in international settings. we sent teams out, both civilian and military experts to try to help them. until recently, while they were going through their transitions it was a very difficult conversation because they didn't have, you know, the authority they thought. but now we're beginning and we have a long list of ways that we're trying to help improve security in libya. >> for example the october 2011 meeting at that meeting did this issue come up with regards to the inability of the libyan government to protect our institutions. did that come up at all in that conversation? >> we obviously talked a great deal about the deteriorating threat environment in libya. one of the reasons we had our own people on the ground, and why we were looking to try to figure o
re-elected because people would have seen it as statesmanship and leadership. now, we have had an unfortunate set of experiences here as recently as the end of last year, new year's eve, because we approached a manufactured crisis, a deadline known as the fiscal cliff, but i don't think anybody in america certainly anybody in this body really wants another 2:00 a.m. senate vote. not because it's inconvenient but because it's not a good thing in the people's house, the senate house of representatives to be voting in the dark of night when people aren't able to watch. nobody wants another cliffhanger that weakens public trust in our government or in our willingness to meet our responsibilities, and most of all no one wants another credit downgrade. now, this is important. the president talks about the importance of lifting the debt ceiling because he said we don't want to suffer another downgrade in our credit standing, but indeed one of the reasons why we have already suffered a negative response to our credit rating is because we haven't dealt with the real problems that confro
now. this is the time to celebrate our democracy and celebrate the president's re-election. we'll be back at you some time soon but now is the time to take a little time off and be great that we're american. >> i know you will and i also know there are some issues in which we all ought to be able to work together. one of the things that i appreciate about you is that you've been able to do that, say that. it's important for the country. >> i think it's important for all of us to see this little goodwill, even if it's brief, especially around an historic moment like this right now. any final words you want to offer alex, governor, before you go? >> i had a huge mustache and didn't cut it until i was 26 because i wanted to look old and then i cut it off because i already was older looking and now alex will get a new lease on life. david, you look pretty good there, too. i think you're going to enjoy it. >> so that's the key to success, huh? >> you feel stronger, too, without that mustache? >> not just yet. i'm a little wobbly. it's cold up here now. >> governor, thanks very much
to libya to observe the elections and at that time on july 7th he expressed to me his deep and grave concerns about security, particularly in benghazi. and he continued to communicate with the state department and i don't know who else was privy of those cables about the deep concern of security there and the need for additional assistance and i will argue with facts that after that event took place, after the fall of gadhafi, the, quote, soft footprint was partially, to some degree, responsible for the tragedy that took place. the american people and the families of these four brave americans still have not gotten the answers that they deserve. i hope that they will get them. >> well, senator, i understand your very strong feelings. you knew chris, you were a friend of chris. you were one of the staunch reporters in the efforts to dislodge gadhafi and try to give the libyan people a chance and we just have a disagreement. we have a disagreement about what did happen and when it happened with respect to explaining the sequence of events. we did get to talk to the ds agents when they
with aggravated assault. >>> a dramatic deadlock in israel where rival parties split parliamentary elections. prime minister benjamin netanyahu did win another term but is skrimabling to build another coalition among parties. the outcome could have a big outcome on the peace process. >>> one man in new zealand wants to ban cats. a prominent economist is calling for the erradication of domestic cats which he calls natural born killers. what? on a website to promote his cats to go campaign, he claims that cats in new zealand are wiping out wildlife. what about those mice? anyway, contributing to the extinction of nine bird species and endangering dozens of others. new zealand has the highest rate of cat opener ship in the world. and many cat lovers have launched their own websites to protest. i'm joining in on that protest. >> the anti-kitten campaign. >> a good percentage of the country is not going to like you. >> let's see a picture of grumpy cat today. >> thank you, natalie. al, how about a check of the weather? >> i'm concerned about my neighbor cat. anyway, let's show you as far as our w
Search Results 0 to 28 of about 29 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)